All right, Kevin M. has a question.

He says we often use an assumed 8% rate of return in projecting portfolio growth.

We also say past performance does not indicate future results.

With the stock market only being around 100 years old, how are we confident that this will

be the case going forward?

Yeah, here's what I love.

People think that, well, I don't say people, that's a penny with a broad brush.

A lot of it, oh, 8%, that's way too aggressive.

What do you guys think?

And why are you using that number?

What's really, really interesting is sometimes when we use 8%, it's actually pretty conservative.

If you look at what historically the S&P 500 has done over the last 100 years, over

the last 60 years, whatever metric you want to look at, it's somewhere between, like,

if you go back 50 years, it's somewhere like 10 to 11% annualized per year.

So I think that 8% is actually not crazy.

It's not outside the realm of possibility.

But one of the ways that we try to ground this, you'll notice a lot of the deliverables

that we have, if you go to moneyguide.com slash resources and download them, we'll use

return assumption.

Like, okay, let's start at 10% for a 20 year old and then let's decrease that return all

the way till 65.

So you get to some terminal rate of like 5.5%, 6%, because when it comes to modeling,

...